Racism in the Bible

Those who believe treating others as you would like to be treated [empathy/compassion] is God's Law (Matthew 7:12) will not fall to racism and homophobia.

Leviticus is based on Levite Jewish priests. The old testament is Jewish law for a jealous war god named yahweh, not the Merciful Heavenly Father.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

Do you dislike me because I'm an atheist? Do you hate atheists?

If I did I wouldn't be a true Christian, one without the religion who
only seeks to follow Christ. I don't know you, but I can't make one lick
of sense out of atheism. If I seem hateful, it must be my frustration
with the ignorance that I have seen in that view since I was ten years
old. I truly only see it as an escape from reality. Reality? God has hand
picked stories, that have happened thru time and made sure they
reached us. The only evidence that I need of their truth is the fact that
they are in the Bible. Reality is not what you or I say it is. Reality is truth.
But agreeing to disagree is always an option. But it should have been the first
thing you said, not the last.

a reply to: randyvs

if we are all supposed to be made in gods image, then it stands to reason that ALL of his children are facets of the greater whole that is referred to as the Abrahamic god whether heterosexual, homosexual or somewhere in between. would that be a fair assessment? that means that we are all engaging in sexual activity for the sheer pleasure of it whether or not it leads to impregnation or not. it wouldn't feel good or be enjoyable if god did not make humans to feel pleasure and enjoyment when engaging in the act. As for scripture and its relevance, nowhere in the 4 gospels does Jesus condemn homosexuality. If people want to base their worldview on the OT then they should convert to Judaism as Jesus is the way is he not? Jesus does mention homosexual men, just not in a negative connotation. In Mathew 19:10-12 He talks about "eunuchs who have been so from birth." In the era at the beginning of the 1st century CE, the word Eunuch in Judea was a reference to gay men. Jesus is indicating being born a Eunuch is a gift from God here.

To bolster their position that a heterosexual marriage is the only legitimate one in gods eyes, Christians often cite Jesus’ words in Matthew 19:4-5, where he responds to a question about whether divorce is permissible:

“Jesus answered, ‘Have you not read that the One who made them at the beginning made them male and female, and said, “For this reason a man shall leave his father and mother and be joined to his wife and the two shall become one flesh”? Therefore, what God has joined together, let no one separate.’ ”

From these words, some Christians draw the conclusion that heterosexuality is the creation norm and, thus, heterosexual marriage is the only legitimate way for people to form romantic relationships. Ironically, Jesus’ own words in this very same passage refute these conclusions.

As the dialogue continues, Jesus’ disciples are disturbed by his strict teaching on divorce. The disciples say that if divorce is not a ready option, perhaps it would be best for a man not to marry a woman. Jesus responds:

“Not everyone can accept this teaching, but only those to whom it is given. For there are eunuchs who have been so from birth, and there are eunuchs who have been made eunuchs by others, and there are eunuchs who have made themselves eunuchs for the sake of the kingdom of heaven. Let anyone accept this who can.” (Matthew 19:11-12)


Jesus identifies three classes of men who should not marry women. Taking his categories in reverse order, first, there are those who have made themselves “eunuchs” for the kingdom of heaven, i.e., those who foreswear marriage to better serve God. Second, he mentions those who have been “made eunuchs by others,” an apparent reference to castrated males. But Jesus mentions a third category — eunuchs who were born that way. Some might argue that Jesus was referring to males born without testicles, but this would be extremely rare. Moreover, this interpretation ignores how the term “born eunuchs” was used in other literature of the time.

In the ancient world, including ancient Jewish culture (as reflected in the Talmud), “natural” or “born” eunuchs were not associated with missing testicles. Rather, they were associated with stereotypically effeminate characteristics and behavior (just like modern gay men), and were thought by Rabbi Eliezer to be subject to “cure” (just like modern gays). Moreover, as we have also seen, eunuchs were commonly associated with homosexual desire.

a reply to: randyvs

I am sorry if I came off in my posts as hateful. I never intend to, but I think sometimes it just happens with the way I phrase things. I consider it trying to provoke thought. But maybe it just provokes. As for agreeing to disagree, I figured it kind of went without saying. But I guess you never know.

You are clearly passionate about your beliefs! I used to be as well but obviously my path lead me somewhere else and now I am an atheist. I just like to share the reasons why with people. I like debating them.

Bit I digress..

a reply to: arpgme

1 Corinthians 6:9

9 Or do you not know that wrongdoers will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: Neither the sexually immoral nor idolaters nor adulterers nor men who have sex with men

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

All good here with respect and no hard feelings.
All the best my good member.

a reply to: WakeUpBeer

I would like to move (make a motion) to this assembly (meeting) that I feel exactly the same way about my posts.

I am sorry if I came off in my posts as hateful. I never intend to, but I think sometimes it just happens with the way I phrase things. I consider it trying to provoke thought. But maybe it just provokes. As for agreeing to disagree, I figured it kind of went without saying. But I guess you never know.

This ^^

Love to everyone on these boards, from your favorite "condescending and adversarial" offensive heathen friend,
Buzzy

a reply to: randyvs

Paul wrote that, a pharisee who later claimed to be Christian.

It's a contradiction of the truth in Matthew 7:12

a reply to: BuzzyWigs

Love to everyone on these boards, from your favorite "condescending and adversarial" offensive heathen friend,
Buzzy

Ah Buzzy, we're used to you. And besides, you have a wonderful
economy with words.

a reply to: arpgme

Well i'm just relaying what is written, I'm in
no way trying to prove anything. Especially about what concerns
me in no way at all. If I were to judge, I'm sure it would mean squawt
and that's about all I'm sure of.

a reply to: peter vlar

I hope you don't get me wrong Peter. You or anyone else.

I do not hate gays. In fact I have always found them
eager to be polite and for some reason seem gifted
with a sharp sense of appropriate humor. Never had anything
but fun talking to them, so how could I hate them?

a reply to: randyvs

No, I apologize for making that the focus of my reply to you when our discussion had nothing to do with that particular topic. I've never had a conversation with you period where you disparaged homosexuality. The point was more to do with what the bible says and the differences between OT and NT and what Jesus message was as opposed to how others seem to use the bible as a smoke screen for their own anti homosexuality tirades. After having just replied to another poster on the topic it was still at the forefront of my mind and you unfortunately became the defacto target of my counter point. No offense intended towards you my friend.

My main intent was simply to point out that many Christians do in fact use scripture as the rationale for hateful and ignorant remarks when it's not actually supported by the scripture thus me using and quoting actual passages to support my POV.

a reply to: peter vlar

My main intent was simply to point out that many Christians do in fact use scripture as the rationale for hateful and ignorant remarks when it's not actually supported by the scripture thus me using and quoting actual passages to support my POV.

You say they are Christians but Jesus says to many that will
come in his name, "Depart from me, I do not know you."
You seem to not make the necessary allowance for what is
true in every walk of life Peter. There are good and bad people
everywhere and in everything. Christianity is hardly any different.
Altho I would agree it possibly should be.

originally posted by: randyvs

You say they are Christians but Jesus says to many that will
come in his name, "Depart from me, I do not know you."

I'm not terribly inclined to disagree with the sentiment you express here. However when you have entire congregations some large, some extremely small( like WBC for example) or people like the Duggars whos eldest son claims that Christians are being discriminated against by not allowing them to discriminate against homosexuals. These groups still speak loudly, carry a big stick and use a twisted variation or interpretation of scripture to make their point and spread their version of the message as loud and as far as their voices will carry. How exactly does one differentiate between a "legitimate Christian" and a Christian in name only? Because the worst offenders often think they are the most pious. No matter how much of the message I may take to heart and how closely I may actually live in accordance with the message attributed to Christ, I'm still a heathen in the eyes of many for being an agnostic. It's my personal cross to bare and if I'm wrong then I'm the one who suffers the consequences if I am to be judged. I just have a hard time seeing how I will be judged more harshly for treating others with kindness and compassion and not being a hypocrite than someone else will be if they are at the end of the day a terrible person but they throw a few dollars into the plate when it's passed around at Sunday mass because they call themselves Christians. OK... enough of my ranting on this!
It just doesn't seem as though very many self proclaimed Christians have got the memo relating to what appears to be a paraphrasing of Mathew 7:21-23 in what you wrote above.

I liked the Jesus I grew up with. He was all about Love, compassion and understanding. He hung out with homeless people, the destitute, the sick and even a few hookers. I just don't see that from a lot of modern Christians. But again... I'm not trying to issue a blanket statement to cover all believers. I'm only addressing the rampant hypocrisy.

You seem to not make the necessary allowance for what is
true in every walk of life Peter.

I don't know that I would agree with that. For example, I don't typically lump you in when I make statements of this nature. Despite not being in agreement with your stances on some issues, I've also found that we have common ground on more things than we disagree on and that even if we disagree or you think I'm being a jerk about it, we can have a civil discussion usually and acknowledge that each other may have a valid point. I don't label you as a "bad" person simply because of the depth of your faith.

There are good and bad people
everywhere and in everything. Christianity is hardly any different.

the main difference there is I don't see many other people passing judgment with the air of superiority and condescension that a lot of Christians seem to do though. I don't encounter the same attitudes from LaVeyan Satanists or Thelemites as I do from the typical American, Bible Belt, Christian. Hence my prior post relating to common perceptions and attitudes towards homosexuals versus what was actually in the Gospel of Mathew.

Altho I would agree it possibly should be.

Having grown up in the church and having taken the time to actually read and familiarize myself with the bible(as well as scripture from other faiths) I would go a step farther than 'possibly' on this thought. For one to call themselves a Christian, one is supposed to be familiar with and live their life by His message right? If you're not doing that, or worse, contradicting the message of the scripture then you're not really a Christian, you're a bigot hiding behind scripture to rationalize your petty ignorance and hatred of others. Not YOU, Randyvs, you as a generality and euphemism for those my statement reflects on. I'm sure you probably got that but I figured I should clarify before someone else thinks I'm attacking you personally lol

a reply to: peter vlar

I'm not trying to issue a blanket statement to cover all believers. I'm only addressing the rampant hypocrisy.

As I said, good and bad. But truth be told every one who follows Christ
must confront their own hypocrisy first and foremost. The cure for that
comes only when we humble ourselves. I myself should practice that more
on ATS. But the rhetoric here is very harsh and I refuse to be the passive
Christian. I know it seems arrogant at times but when I'm sure a member
isn't just out to drag someone thru the mud? Well, you've seen the
metamorphosis that takes place. Just as Wake up Beer saw it. Any way
as I digress I really just wanted to say, Christians that never confront
their own hypocrisy, most likely bother me far more than they could bother
you my man. But again I'm not their Judge.

Hope you are well.

a reply to: randyvs
No need to be a Christian to be hypocritical.
No need to be a Christian to want to overcome one's failings. Or regrets.

I suppose the difference is a Christian needs someone else to tell them it's ok to screw up as long as you keep trying.

a reply to: Phage

I don't think I could disagree with that even if i
wanted too. Humanity seems to have to few leaders,
with many wanting to be led in the right direction.

I'm curious.
Do you see that we (mankind) generally lack guidance? Or would you
disagree with that?

a reply to: randyvs
I don't know from mankind.

I know that from my limited perspective (local and national) we lack leadership. But that's probably not the same thing as guidance.

Personally, I've gotten guidance from a variety of sources. Not a few of which could be termed negative guidance; what ever you do, don't do anything like that guy. Seems to have worked so far.

www.youtube.com...

a reply to: Phage

Now that's my kind of answer.

a reply to: randyvs

The bass line ain't bad either.